Crash at Shoreham Air show

[saaby93]

El stovey said:

Riley Blue said:

No hate at all from me, nor any reason for there to be.

Do I think he's lying? He might be, equally he might not be.
Do I think he 'got away with it'? It's not a phrase I'd use however he has been acquitted of the charge against him. Some people might consider that as 'getting away with it'; I don't.
Is there a need to apportion blame? No, but there is a need to find the reason.

That’s all shown above.

The reason was that the aircraft wasn’t at the right height during the manoeuvre. That was caused by cognitive impairment. There’s even information at what probably caused the cognitive impairment.

The bloke comes around from an induced coma and discovers he’s killed loads of people. Goes through a trial with finger pointing from the stalls and people accusing him of all sorts. He has to live with knowing he’s killed these people through something which apparently wasn’t his fault.

Then gets acquitted and still people are saying he’s lucky?

Would be interesting to understand how any of us would feel if for some inexplicable set of circumstances we ended up in the same position
It theory the AAIB report should have draw a line under it
The trial process has added another dimension but it too should draw a line

[Riley Blue]

El stovey said:

Riley Blue said:

No hate at all from me, nor any reason for there to be.

Do I think he's lying? He might be, equally he might not be.
Do I think he 'got away with it'? It's not a phrase I'd use however he has been acquitted of the charge against him. Some people might consider that as 'getting away with it'; I don't.
Is there a need to apportion blame? No, but there is a need to find the reason.

That’s all shown above.

The reason was that the aircraft wasn’t at the right height during the manoeuvre. That was caused by cognitive impairment. There’s even information at what probably caused the cognitive impairment.

The bloke comes around from an induced coma and discovers he’s killed loads of people. Goes through a trial with finger pointing from the stalls and people accusing him of all sorts. He has to live with knowing he’s killed these people through something which apparently wasn’t his fault.

Then gets acquitted and still people are saying he’s lucky?

Earlier I used 'fortunate' as a comparative term, I don't consider him lucky. I don't know how, or if, I could cope knowing that my actions, whether impaired or not, had resulted in the deaths of 11 people.

[yellowjack]

Petrus1983 said:

Not guilty - feel sorry for the families.

Serious question. Why? I get that empathy means we "feel sorry for" family and friends in such a situation. It's a natural human emotion. My question is rather more aimed at why we ought to feel any more sorry for them than we already did, based on this not guilty verdict.

I've seen the "there's no justice" headlines and banners in the papers. Yet the evidence available was put before a jury in a court of law, assessed, deliberated on, and a 'Not Guilty' verdict returned. This would suggest that justice has, very much, "been served". It's exactly how "justice" is meant to work.

HughG said:

Krikkit said:

I can see this spinning on for another round, perhaps negligence or similar? Just because they're not satisfied about proving manslaughter doesn't mean lesser charges couldn't be had.

Good point, could go to court of appeal.

BBC reporting jury were told “that it must decide if the prosecution had proved cognitive impairment had not affected Mr Hill during the flight”

Which is exactly right. The Crown's job was to demonstrate that Mr Hill was guilty of an offence "beyond all reasonable doubt". The jury is directed by the judge in many cases to set aside their emotions and to base their verdict upon only the evidence submitted by both parties. Either the jury believed that Mr Hill was guilty of no offence, or that the evidence put forward by the prosecution was insufficient to banish any doubt in their minds. Given that the verdict was unanimous (from what my wife read to me in the car the other day), then I'd suggest that it's time to draw a line under this story now, and to move on to learning the lessons that arise from it to keep the general public as safe as possible around air displays in the future.

CAPP0 said:

Wingo said:

Oh dear, real trial finds differently to the findings of the trial by social media & news media.

That isn't going to sit well with the keyboard judge and jurys in these media driven days.

Wingo.

You're correct, of course, but given the evidence in the public domain, the verdict does beggar belief somewhat.

You'd probably have to read the full transcript of the trial, and also know what, if any, evidence was excluded by the judge to fully understand how the verdict came about. Suffice to say that I also presumed that Andy Hill would be found 'Guilty' at this trial. But I can see how it's possible to see it the other way, especially as a member of a jury being constantly reminded of the rules of evidence by a judge. Surprising, possibly, but not entirely shocking. After all, plenty of motorists have caused carnage on our roads and then walked out of courts with not guilty verdicts handed down, even on what would appear to have been cut & dried cases where guilt was inescapable.

ninepoint2 said:

Many of the general public seem unable to understand what justice actually means. Too often confused nowadays with revenge, compensation, blame etc. Not meaning to make light of the deaths, just a gentle reminder that a decent Justice sytem like we have in the UK is a great example of how it should work.

Sometimes "Not Guilty" is the entirely just verdict handed down by a jury of one's peers. It's a system we've relied upon for a long, long time. It's not infallible by any means, with innocent people hanged for crimes they didn't commit in the past, and equally entirely guilty people walking free to re-offend multiple times. No one disputes that this was a tragic incident. I'm sure that Andy Hill, given his time again, would play this one differently. But the court was given evidence by both sides, each trying to prove the opposite was true. Whether the jury reached the correct verdict? Who can tell? But they reached the verdict they did within the framework laid down, and under the direction of a judge whose profession it is to know the law and to apply it safely, and impartially. The day that the baying mob outside a court begins to affect outcomes inside would be a terrible day for the institution of Justice in this country.

[Robertj21a]

I agree with all the comments about the importance of our legal systems, I also recognise that many of us won't be satisfied by this result as it gives the impression that he killed 11 innocent people and still got off on what some may interpret as a technicality [there's no need to 'correct' me, I'm just saying how it may appear to some people).
I desperately hope that there is no possibility of anything similar being possible in future.

.

[IforB]

Robertj21a said:

I agree with all the comments about the importance of our legal systems, I also recognise that many of us won't be satisfied by this result as it gives the impression that he killed 11 innocent people and still got off on what some may interpret as a technicality [there's no need to 'correct' me, I'm just saying how it may appear to some people).
I desperately hope that there is no possibility of anything similar being possible in future.

.

Making a mistake and killing people is not illegal.

This trial was a waste of everyone's time because of the desire of people to see "justice being done" and the hyper aggressive stance taken by the press and public that Hill might as well be labelled a murderer.

This is what happens when normal process is done away with and a show trial in convened. Luckily we have a legal system that is strong enough to withstand such nonsense. Unfortunately, the poor families of those killed are now left without any closure that will satisfy them and no-one will be able to move on from the tragedy. This will drag on now with private prosecutions and appeals and all the rubbish that brings with it.

It satisfies no-one, but it is not the fault of the legal system, but those baying for blood and for revenge justice that lead to this trial.

[Robertj21a]

IforB said:

Making a mistake and killing people is not illegal.

This trial was a waste of everyone's time because of the desire of people to see "justice being done" and the hyper aggressive stance taken by the press and public that Hill might as well be labelled a murderer.

This is what happens when normal process is done away with and a show trial in convened. Luckily we have a legal system that is strong enough to withstand such nonsense. Unfortunately, the poor families of those killed are now left without any closure that will satisfy them and no-one will be able to move on from the tragedy. This will drag on now with private prosecutions and appeals and all the rubbish that brings with it.

It satisfies no-one, but it is not the fault of the legal system, but those baying for blood and for revenge justice that lead to this trial.

I understand what you're saying but can't agree that 'the trial was a waste of everyone's time'. You might say that now, after the decision of the jury - how could you have been so certain at the outset ?

.

[saaby93]

Previously the publishing of the AAIB report, showing what happened and what's to be done to try to prevent a reoccurence would have been enough for relatives and friends to know that loss of their loved ones had not been in vain.

Does also running it through the courts give a greater or lesser sense of closure?

[Robertj21a]

saaby93 said:

Previously the publishing of the AAIB report, showing what happened and what's to be done to try to prevent a reoccurence would have been enough for relatives and friends to know that loss of their loved ones had not been in vain.

Does also running it through the courts give a greater or lesser sense of closure?

As we didn't know what his defence lawyer would come up with, I can't see why a court case should have been avoided. It *might* have highlighted other issues that weren't as fully covered by the AAIB report.

[anonymous-user]

Robertj21a said:

As we didn't know what his defence lawyer would come up with, I can't see why a court case should have been avoided. It *might* have highlighted other issues that weren't as fully covered by the AAIB report.

Lawyers aren't there to 'come up' with things. They're there to advise/advocate on the law as they apply to the facts presented.

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

Previously the publishing of the AAIB report, showing what happened and what's to be done to try to prevent a reoccurence would have been enough for relatives and friends to know that loss of their loved ones had not been in vain.

Does also running it through the courts give a greater or lesser sense of closure?

Worse in this case I expect. Nobody is guilty. Plus it delays the process of moving on with their lives.

[IforB]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Except in this case, we can see both the cause and the effect. I do not have a "aggressive" attitude towards this, other than the fact I am annoyed by the way the normal processes were subverted and now we see that exactly what that means in the case of complex and technical court cases without clear evidence.

I think you accusing me of hyperbole and then suggesting that my comments are akin to far right and far left wingers yelling insult at eachother is somewhat ironic though, do you not think?

Ever since the accident, there has been a great deal of discussion on the causes and for the most part, when I have discussed this with fellow pilots, then we all have a very similar opinion in regard to what happened and the AAIB report backed that up. What did dismay me however, was the constant barrage of abuse that anyone who was not part of the "hang 'em high" brigade suffered. In deed on a few occasions on this forum, I and others were accused of wanting the families to suffer or that we wanted Hill to be "let off" other such nonsense, simply because we said that the CPS following this path was not the right thing to be done.

Something that has now been borne out by this decidedly unsatisfactory state of affairs.

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The lawyer doesn't come up with a defence. The facts available to the lawyer either amount to a potential defence, or they do not. The lawyer's job is to apply the facts, as given to them, to the law, based upon the client's instruction. They don't 'come up with something'.

The lawyers here didn't say to Mr Hill, 'why don't we invent that you were impaired?'.

[IforB]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Any trial that is put on to satisfy public opinion first can be deemed a "show trial" and frankly, that is exactly what it was. A trial that was pushed for political and public perception reasons.

There is an on-going and never ending internecine war between different departments such as the CAA enforcement branch, the AAIB, the Police and the CPS over who has jurisdiction over aircraft accidents and investigations. This case has just proven how ill-equipped the CPS are to deal with something like this. The CPS were using it to try and "show" their capabilities and have come up very short. As expected.

The only people who will suffer because of this ill-handled mess, is the families of the victims. They are right to be angry about this. Hill's lawyer did his job extremely well and cannot be censured for that, nor can Hill, as he has been through due process and been found to be not guilty.

I may disagree with the verdict, I might not, but this result was inevitable once the question of Hill being incapacitated came up. At that point it was game over.

I only criticise those who consider that justice is served when public opinion takes precedence over calm deliberation by people who are knowledgeable and experienced. Those much maligned experts that appear to be pushed to one side in preference to shouty, opinionated folk with no actual knowledge.

In this case, the result proves my point entirely, no matter what you may think of my stance, that is how it is.

[Robertj21a]

janesmith1950 said:

Robertj21a said:

As we didn't know what his defence lawyer would come up with, I can't see why a court case should have been avoided. It *might* have highlighted other issues that weren't as fully covered by the AAIB report.

Lawyers aren't there to 'come up' with things. They're there to advise/advocate on the law as they apply to the facts presented.

I wonder who first suggested that the pilot might have been temporarily incapable.

[Bonefish Blues]

Robertj21a said:

janesmith1950 said:

Robertj21a said:

As we didn't know what his defence lawyer would come up with, I can't see why a court case should have been avoided. It *might* have highlighted other issues that weren't as fully covered by the AAIB report.

Lawyers aren't there to 'come up' with things. They're there to advise/advocate on the law as they apply to the facts presented.

I wonder who first suggested that the pilot might have been temporarily incapable.

The pilot, when he was taken out of his seat by the emergency services, IIRC (in terms, at least).

[eccles]

Bonefish Blues said:

Robertj21a said:

janesmith1950 said:

Robertj21a said:

As we didn't know what his defence lawyer would come up with, I can't see why a court case should have been avoided. It *might* have highlighted other issues that weren't as fully covered by the AAIB report.

Lawyers aren't there to 'come up' with things. They're there to advise/advocate on the law as they apply to the facts presented.

I wonder who first suggested that the pilot might have been temporarily incapable.

The pilot, when he was taken out of his seat by the emergency services, IIRC (in terms, at least).

And I think it's fair to say most people when they read that thought he had been knocked out during the impact.

[Bonefish Blues]

eccles said:

Bonefish Blues said:

Robertj21a said:

janesmith1950 said:

Robertj21a said:

As we didn't know what his defence lawyer would come up with, I can't see why a court case should have been avoided. It *might* have highlighted other issues that weren't as fully covered by the AAIB report.

Lawyers aren't there to 'come up' with things. They're there to advise/advocate on the law as they apply to the facts presented.

I wonder who first suggested that the pilot might have been temporarily incapable.

The pilot, when he was taken out of his seat by the emergency services, IIRC (in terms, at least).

And I think it's fair to say most people when they read that thought he had been knocked out during the impact.

Perhaps, who knows what was in his mind given the context - but it was remarkable presence of mind to create his defence 10 minutes after he'd almost died himself, if that's what he did.

[Robertj21a]

Bonefish Blues said:

eccles said:

Bonefish Blues said:

Robertj21a said:

janesmith1950 said:

Robertj21a said:

As we didn't know what his defence lawyer would come up with, I can't see why a court case should have been avoided. It *might* have highlighted other issues that weren't as fully covered by the AAIB report.

Lawyers aren't there to 'come up' with things. They're there to advise/advocate on the law as they apply to the facts presented.

I wonder who first suggested that the pilot might have been temporarily incapable.

The pilot, when he was taken out of his seat by the emergency services, IIRC (in terms, at least).

And I think it's fair to say most people when they read that thought he had been knocked out during the impact.

Perhaps, who knows what was in his mind given the context - but it was remarkable presence of mind to create his defence 10 minutes after he'd almost died himself, if that's what he did.

Yes, utterly amazing.

.

[Wozy68]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Well done . Great earlier post and response.

[anonymous-user]

Wozy68 said:

Well done . Great earlier post and response.

Yup, spot on.